Will the PS succeed at its vicious campaign against immigrants and visible minorities?

Will Matias Turkkila, the new Perussuomalaiset (PS) editor-in-chief that aims to jump start the party’s website into a Hommaforum phenonmenon, succeed? In order to answer that question we’d have to rephrase the question in to the following way: Will Turkkila and the PS succeed at luring Finland’s biggest nationalist and multiculturally challenged crowd to the party’s cause whatever that may be?

You don’t need to be a brilliant analysts with a crystal ball to figure out that PS chairman Timo Soini is very concerned by the party’s waning popularity as the crucial municipal election nears in October.

In order to slow the PS’ demise as one of Finland’s four largest parties, Soini has turned to his favorite weapons of choice that helped him last year: bigotry, prejudice, nationalism and anti-EU sentiment.

Soini will never admit that he wants to incite nationalist sentiment because “he is a Christian.” He will tell you this with a poker face as he has said repeatedly: There isn’t one racist in the PS or that racists will be baned from running for office in the municipal election.

The latest appointment of Turkkila by the PS is a last-ditch effort by the party to save its political hide and vie for a respectable result in the 2015 parliamentary election. The PS is looking at new ways to disguise its bigotry, prejudice and nationalism in order to lure voters. What better way than by appointing as their new editor-in-chief a person who made Hommaforum the most successful hate site in Finland?

This present period, 2011-15, is a wretched and dangerous stretch especially for immigrants, visible minorities and sensible thinking Finns. It would be naive, even an exercise in self-deceit, to claim the contrary.

The big question that we should ask is if the PS will succeed at turning their poor poll showings into something that we saw before their impressive election victory last year.

I doubt it but at the end of the day that depends on each and everyone of us.

Be warned: Whatever argument the PS uses to inject nationalist sentiment and make bigotry acceptable in Finland is part of a vicious campaign that will at the end of the day hit immigrants and visible minorities.

I agree with Sasu, immigration discussion is without a bases right now that if this trend continues, i’m affraid we will never solve immigration problem, on the contrary problems involved immigration will keep increasing.

Farang, the problem with your approach if you will to immigration is that it’s first and formost a problem. Any group where there are people there are problems. How we resolve these problems is the issue not that they are a problem before they ever step on Finnish soil. If you look at many PS and anti-immigration sites you will see the same matter stressed: a problem.

That kind of attitude or approach smells of a dysfunctional society.

The hardliners go even further: they are such a big problem that they cannot live with us. Hence, my racism for them is justified.

As I have already written somewhere else the desperation of PS after a popularity slide of 5% points must be very high. The appointment of Turkkila finally ripped of the veil of racism of PS. This party can’t deny publically its commitment to racism.

It will bring in the very farright wing of Finnish society into the politics of PS. I am very doubtful if the moderate Finns who have voted for the PS for different reasons than anti-immigration, racism, homophobia etc. will vote for this party again.

In fact, the appointment is the best thing that could have happened to Finnish politics. It has created clarity about the REAL NATURE of PS. It has demonstrated the desperation of Soini cs. Therefore: no hide and seek, no excuses. When you vote for PS you vote for anti-immigration, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Europe.

You are absolutely right and spot on: the PS is now launching a vicious camaign against immigrants and visible minorities. The naming of Matias Turkkila is more than clear that shis will happen. Why on earth would you want a person like Turkkila, who launched the most successful hate platform in Finland to be the PS’ editor-in-chief and to launch its new website (Hommaforum 2)? The answer is clear.

If the PS were really interested in renouncing racism why do they do these things? Because what you see is not what you actually get.

Desperation follow Dis-Direction. The common flaw in popularism. Like I have written before: intelligence is not PS’s core competence. It will not grow since PS hired the worst posiible choice.

Dis-Direction (D-D) becomes Wrong-Direction(W-D) There is no Re-Direction (R-D) no more. Turkkila is the ET of PS. The wrong guy for the wrong party. Can’t get any worse for PS!! Yes, but I am not going to say.

MT, let me put it other way: If there are 3 different issues, which all have different solution, which one is better approach to find the solution?

a) Treat all issues separately and find the solution for each issue?
b) Treat the issues as one and try to find one common solution?

It’s obvious that one solution doesn’t work for all. And in case 1 or 2 of those 3 issues are not even problems, then they don’t need solution at all. In that case the focus should be put to those issues that are actual problems and need a solution.

What do you think about this? This is propably one case that anti-immigrant people will be using. But do you think it’s nonsense to be afraid that this would happen in Finland also in future if immigration goes like it goes in Germany?

Farang, what do you think we think about violence? But let’s take a look at violence. What do you call institutional racism? What about politicians that maintain and support urban tales with their silence? What is worse a brawl, which is not good, or racism and prejudice that excludes people. What is more violent and unacceptable in your opinion?

–Farang: When immigrants, muslims, etc are guilty of violent attacks against natives, you immediately start to search for reasons from the native population and their racism.

If I had students and had to show them a typical anti-immigration response, yours would be a strong candidate, This is a poor strategy because all it does is divert the question at hand AWAY from the real issue. No matter how much you try to lure people into a new “thread” it won’t help you. We spot those kind of things all the time on Migrant Tales. In order to start a new thread, where you have moved the goalposts and leveled out the field to suit your anti-immigration view, you will go as far as to put words in people’s mouth and claim them of saying this or that.

Migrant Tales: He is telling you that immigrants and visible minorities don’t have the right to complain even if they are brutally attacked physically. We have many good cases on Migrant Tales.

I am a living proof of that, that we vicible immigrants receive almost zero rights when attacked brutally, Ive been attacked many times physically, and when i called the police either i was a suspect or up to this day im still expecting justice but nobody has contacted me yet or my case never went further to court, so i just swallowed my sadness and just move on, what else can you do with a situation like this, your powerless so you move on.

Migrant Tales, you dishonestly quoted my both statements in different replies and then handled them as separate issues.

My point with these two statements was to show how YOU think. In either case, whether the attacker was immigrant or native, your immediate assumption is that the reason must be something that the native is responsible for.

Now I think you got the point but are too afraid to admit everyone your bias, that’s why do quoted the statements separately and handled them in a way that it would appear that they were my opinions, while they are not. They were there to illustrate YOUR opinions.

My point with these two statements was to show how YOU think. In either case, whether the attacker was immigrant or native, your immediate assumption is that the reason must be something that the native is responsible for.

Rubbish. But if you think that presenting a link about violent clashes between Far Right activists and extremist Muslim elements, in which the Police have also been attacked, has nothing to do with the racism of those Far Right activists, then YOU are living in cloud cuckoo land.

You’re one goal on this site is to try to present MT as the ‘true racist’, again and again, even while you present your own gossip and constant negative diatribe against immigrants.

60 million Muslims live happily in Europe, and you want to present this clash between extremists as somehow representing a problem of ‘immigration’?

And what about the extreme Left, which has been mostly indiginous Europeans, who are the usual ones to go out on the streets and pick a fight with the Far Right?

MT is absolutely right to put your link into context by saying that these are no issues exclusive to immigrants. Immigrants have not been the only ones to stand up to Nazis in Europe, whether in stupid street battles or through World War.

Mark, so you are clearly implicating that if one experiences racism he is allowed to attack the police with violence, and even try to kill them? You are one sick individual.

How long do I have to tolerate this stupidity? You are so busy inventing ‘enemies’ that you fail to see sane, normal people making perfectly valid arguments to you!

YOU gave a link, that involved a violent demonstration involving not simply AN IMMIGRANT, but a confrontation between the Far Right and immigrants. Then you went on to say that where the immigrants are involved, the attempt is ALWAYS to blame the natives for being racists!

They were NAZIS, you brain-washed idiot! Of course in this particular case RACISM had something to do with the clash. You cannot present a specific example like this and take this very obvious observation about its cause, and then assume that we are ‘generalising’ about all cases of racism.

That is just plain stupid.

And as the racism in this case was a drawing of muhammed, you want to say that if one draws a picture of muhammed, he deserves to die, or atleast being attacked?

And now you have conveniently turned the conversation completely around to start slagging off Muslims. This story was about PS as a political party using immigration to score political points. And here you are, slagging off immigrants and Muslims. And suggesting that I think cartoonists should die! Talk about utterly dishonest and insulting. In due course, I’m sure that this kind of commenting and baiting will not be allowed on MT. Enjoy it while you can, idiot!

And how can you say that this is not a problem of immigration? Without immigration those extreme muslims wouldn’t be in that country, so yes, it is part of the problem.

These are not problems of immigration. There are 60 million Muslims in Europe and how many arguments have there been about cartoons? I have also written elsewhere at length about this with the Elf. I’m not going to repeat it here.

Problems of religion have been around in Europe for centuries, even while many religious people have been living normal peaceful lives. This is not an excuse to denigrate Muslims, here or elsewhere.

Mark, long reply but still you avoided the most important question: Does racism make violent attacks acceptable?

And one question about that “racism”. Against who were the demostrators racists? The far right were just having a pieceful demonstation with no violence, but then the muslims together with left wing intervened and caused the violence.

Similar has happened in UK also. Far right extremists have had demonstation (NOTE: NO VIOLENCE, JUST DEMONSTRATION) and then the opposite (leftits/muslims) have attacked them.

Mark, long reply but still you avoided the most important question: Does racism make violent attacks acceptable?

Are you joking? I am not replying. I will not be forced into making responses by insults!

And one question about that “racism”. Against who were the demostrators racists? The far right were just having a pieceful demonstation with no violence, but then the muslims together with left wing intervened and caused the violence.

Well, that’s interesting. You presented this as an example of racim, not me.

For the record, I don’t see anything ‘peaceful’ about carrying caricatures of Mohammed through the streets. Imagine if they were nude pictures of Finland’s President? Would you consider that a ‘peaceful’ act?

This is not a comment in any way about the violent response and is not a justification of any violence. It is simply an observation that the word ‘peaceful’ to describe that Nazi scum is testing anybody’s credibility. This Pro NRW group and the Salafists have clashed many times before.

Similar has happened in UK also. Far right extremists have had demonstation (NOTE: NO VIOLENCE, JUST DEMONSTRATION) and then the opposite (leftits/muslims) have attacked them.

Dear, Mark, think about it carefully. Who did the wrong there?

I don’t need a lecture from you about right and wrong Farang. You present these hypotheticals as if you expect me to condone or defend violence, and I have absolutely no reason to defend it. The ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ of these ‘demonstrations’ go far beyond what is legal – there is the question of what is culturally and morally acceptable. While the demonstrations were legal, that does not make them ‘right’. While violent opposition to these demonstrations are not legal, that does not make ALL opposition to these demonstrations wrong.

“Well, that’s interesting. You presented this as an example of racim, not me.”

Could you please read back the posts again. It was YOU who brought the racism here, not me.

Here it is, just in case you can’t find it. Your words Mark:

“But if you think that presenting a link about violent clashes between Far Right activists and extremist Muslim elements, in which the Police have also been attacked, has nothing to do with the racism of those Far Right activists, then YOU are living in cloud cuckoo land.”

All I have to back my comments up are what I’ve heard from these individuals, so I can’t provide any proof.

The emphasis really was not to provide proof, but to show us what you had based your opinions on. Remember, you went from three cases to saying that the whole public sector was suffering a ‘disturbing atmosphere’ and that the practice was very common. Even those three examples had almost no details, so it was very hard to decide whether they were problems of immigrants making demands or the unprofessionalism of the staff you had spoken to.

A situation like that warrants a proper investigation. What you offered was no more detailed than gossip, but the conclusions you drew from it were wide-ranging and very detrimental to immigrants.

That is mischief-making of the highest order, but you don’t feel any need to respond to that!

Well, how I see it, someone could ask people they know who are working in public services how it is. Then post here and compare the results. So far I have posted comments that back up my interpretation and no-one else have posted anything to counter that.

Well, how I see it, someone could ask people they know who are working in public services how it is. Then post here and compare the results. So far I have posted comments that back up my interpretation and no-one else have posted anything to counter that.

That is quite unacceptable, Farang. If you are going to make a very wide-ranging claim about the negative effects of immigration on the public administration, then the burden really is on you to provide proper evidence for that (I’m not talking proof, I’m talking evidence, information that is important and relevant to understanding the cases and the behaviour of the health professionals). The burden is not on us to somehow prove that the service is is not being abused. In this case, the unprofessional behaviour in question appears to be that of Finns, giving inappropriate services. This is not the fault of immigrants, but you expect immigrants to be responsible through some imagined intimidation, for which you give no evidence.

Neither you or I can speak for the entire public services of Finland. I’m sure of that. But what we can do is look at your reasoning, and how you have arrived at your conclusion about this ‘disturbing atmosphere’. At the moment, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that a casual conversation with 3 of your mates is not grounds for deciding on the scale or the specifics of any problem involving immigrants.

The point is, it was enough to convince you and to make you feel justified in making the claim. That is quite easy to understand. You are a rabid immigrant hater and your threshold for being convinced about these ‘problems’ is low to non-existent. In fact, I’d go so far as to say you are pretty much making stuff up!

That is quite unacceptable, Farang. If you are going to make a very wide-ranging claim about the negative effects of immigration on the public administration

You understood me wrong. I didn’t mean the immigration causes the negative effect. I mean the atmosphere in Finland causes the negative effect and that atmosphere is a fault of so called “Finnish kukkahattutätis”.

I’m surprised that you are still trying to keep this discussion alive since your obvious lies were exposed, but why don’t you try to explain to our readers exactly who you consider to be a kukkahattutäti and where you learned this word?

Justicedemon, I’m not keeping that discussion alive, it was Mark who brought it up again in this thread. You would have noticed this if you would pay attentions. So blame Mark for keeping that discussion up and bringing it to this thread where it doesn’t belong

I accept your apology. Hopefully you will no longer use this forum to dress up old urban myths as your personal experience.

So where is your explanation of the expression kukkahattutäti? I have only heard extreme authoritarian opponents of the Nordic welfare state use this expression, which I would translate as bleeding heart pinko liberal. It’s one of those terms that mainly serves to characterise its user.

In general the people who use this expression typically claim to support the welfare state in some abstract idealistic sense, but are then always strongly opposed to its application in specific and concrete cases. Thus unemployment benefit is a good thing, but anyone who actually claims it is a workshy scrounger, especially if the claimant has the wrong melanin quotient.

Kukkahattutäti is for example a person who want’s to restrict selling of alcohol so that poor people wouldn’t kill themselves with booze. Kukkahattutäti is also know as having extreme amounts of understanding what comes to poor criminals who can’t be blamed because they are victims of the environment.

By this reasoning, the governments of nearly all European countries (Albania is an exception) are controlled by the people whom you are characterising. Alcohol licensing is overwhelmingly the norm throughout the developed world. The same applies to restrictions on the sale of tobacco and narcotics of various kinds.

Are we to understand that your abuse is directed at the architects of these almost universal public policies?

There are two things that causes crimes:
1) Stupid laws
2) Evil people

For example, if alcohol usage would be criminalized, then the criminals who drink alcohol wouldn’t be evil, the law is just stupid.

Fox example, if killing people is criminalized, then the criminals who kill people are evil people.

Do you get my idea 🙂

And what comes to kukkahattutätis, those are the ones that want stupid laws (1) and they want to protect and feel sorry for criminals who are evil people (2). Only people who kukkahattutäti’s don’t feel sorry for are the people who breaks to stupid laws (1).

Another question: precisely how do your views and mindset differ from those of Anders Breivik?

I can’t possibly know since I have absolutely no idea about mindset of Breivik. I don’t know him, so why should I care? There are crazy nutcases all over the world, why should I be interested about them?

And about my examples, once again you failed to argument against them. It’s not an argument if you just say “your examples are bad”, you need to give some arguments for backing it up.

You are clearly both singing from the same hymnbook. What was your characterisation again?

Kukkahattutätis are the cancer of the human kind.

This is 100% Breivik. This is the specific mindset that led him to target a Norwegian Labour Party summer camp for children.

Why do you say that Breivik is a nutcase? What he did was entirely consistent with his anti-jihadi neofascist logic. Or is it the anti-jihadi programme that is insane? Time to take sides.

Your “examples” were fictitious. You attempted to sell us 40 year-old urban myths from the UK National Health Service as your “personal experience”, blissfully unaware that what you were saying was inconsistent with some very fundamental regulations governing public service in Finland. You have already apologised for this. Short memory?

Kukkahattu täti will forbid christmas parties from schools because it might offend people with other religions. Kukkahattutäti does this even without asking from anyone with other religion if they actually are offended. Kukkahattutäti does this just in case. As a conclusion kukkahattutäti will this she made the world better place, while she actually made it worse for everybody; Worse for Finns because they can’t celebrate christmas anymore in schools and worse for immigrants because people will assume that christmas parties are forbidden because immigrants have complained.

How was her message met? By boos and jeers from some of the 60,000 people gathered for her concert. And that was just the beginning, since Romanian press took up the subject and transformed it into a matter of hurt national pride. Not few were the editorials that questioned her motivations, her position, and her right to make such a statement in Bucharest. Inflammatory pieces accused Madonna of equaling Romanians with Gypsies, and of purposefully exploiting this subject, a painful one for Romanians, for her own marketing purposes. A Romanian TV channel ( link in Romanian) collected the opinions of average Romanians on the topic. Tellingly, they read: “the fact that a whole nation did not succeed to educate and civilize this ethnic group, but on the contrary […] is no reason for national pride,” reads one comment; “I see no difference between our discrimination against Gypsies and their discrimination against the Blacks,” is another reaction; “Why don’t you [Madonna] go one night in Ferentari [a neighborhood in Bucharest with the reputation of the most violent and poorest borough in the city; inhabited by a large Romani population] to enrich a little your knowledge about them. To be robbed, beaten up, and possibly… to be still alive afterward,” recommends another.

So where is your explanation of the expression kukkahattutäti? I have only heard extreme authoritarian opponents of the Nordic welfare state use this expression, which I would translate as bleeding heart pinko liberal. It’s one of those terms that mainly serves to characterise its user.

Not exactly. Kukkahattutäti translates into a naïve, moralizing Gutmensch, who gets appalled when confronted with something contradicting his/her ideological framework. In the case of third world immigration – the topic of this blog – this framework usually includes third-worldism, multiculturalism, socialist globalism and climate alarmism. Granted, there is a considerable overlap with “bleeding heart pinko liberal”.

Funny, I am yet to meet someone who uses the word kukkahattutäti and opposes the Nordic welfare state. However, all those people oppose global welfare, whether this is in the form of south-to-north immigration from the developing countries, climate compensations, Eurozone “solidarity” or most current forms of foreign aid.

That characterises most of the rabid counter-jihadists and other allah-oholaiset visiting Migrant Tales.

Hardly a dictionary definition.

I am yet to meet someone who uses the word kukkahattutäti and opposes the Nordic welfare state.

Then you haven’t been paying attention.

The standard neofascist strategy is to pay lip service to the concept of social welfare, but to denigrate its practical expressions and demonise its beneficiaries. As I noted above:

In general the people who use this expression typically claim to support the welfare state in some abstract idealistic sense, but are then always strongly opposed to its application in specific and concrete cases. Thus unemployment benefit is a good thing, but anyone who actually claims it is a workshy scrounger, especially if the claimant has the wrong melanin quotient.

Allah-oho claims that people have only instrumental value. This view enables a fascist to reconcile the notion of universal social welfare with the logic of Action T4. I wonder how deeply the cognitive dissonance goes. One of our now banned contributors came up with this gem in a discussion on the subject:

JD – ok, so when Titanic sank, what value decided place on the lifeboat?

The answer, of course, was women and children first, which in highly patriarchal post-Edwardian society was the precise opposite of any fascist critique of dignity.

Nor do you explain anything by throwing in a lot of new loaded expressions that mean whatever you choose to make them mean for your own nefarious purposes:

That characterises most of the rabid counter-jihadists and other allah-oholaiset visiting Migrant Tales.

That blinding light comes from the mirror.

Then you haven’t been paying attention.

True enough, I haven’t been paying much attention to your ‘interpretations’. That might be deliberate.

The standard neofascist strategy is to pay lip service to the concept of social welfare, but to denigrate its practical expressions and demonise its beneficiaries.

As I noted above:
In general the people who use this expression typically claim to support the welfare state in some abstract idealistic sense, but are then always strongly opposed to its application in specific and concrete cases. Thus unemployment benefit is a good thing, but anyone who actually claims it is a workshy scrounger, especially if the claimant has the wrong melanin quotient.

Doesn’t this contradict with the often-offered notion that these “neofascists” are major beneficiaries of the social system?

A welfare system is essentially a fund owned and managed exclusively by its members/investors who alone have the right to decide who can and who cannot be a beneficiary. Outsiders do not have a say (apart from creditors) .

If you are a non-member and want to become a member, your options are 1) a direct buy-in or 2) convincing the members that you have potential to become a sufficient contributor to the system in the future.

If you cannot manage either, then your place is somewhere else, for example in a developing country (a Roma ghetto) living a developing country (ghetto) life with a developing country (ghetto) lifespan in varying degrees of material deprivation.

Allah-oho claims that people have only instrumental value.

What he actually wrote was that the only clearly quantifiable and thus observed component (as opposed to an abstract convention) of the value of an individual is the instrumental (-> potential labor market) value.

JD – ok, so when Titanic sank, what value decided place on the lifeboat?

The question is relevant to only those on-board the ship; If you couldn’t afford a ticket and were left outside, you are in a different equation.

Nor do you explain anything by throwing in a lot of new loaded expressions that mean whatever you choose to make them mean for your own nefarious purposes:
third-worldism, multiculturalism, socialist globalism and climate alarmism

Fair enough. Multiculturalism is indeed a loaded concept. For example Tariq Modood’s definitions of both the ideological and practical aspects of the concept will do fine. Socialist globalism includes entities like “global social justice”, “global socialism/social democracy” and “global responsibility”, i.e. different global scale, socially motivated wealth redistribution schemes. Third-worldism and climate alarmism should be unambiguous.

Do you think kukkahattutäti will ever get into the dictionary as a non-pejorative expression? Try to answer without denigrating Finnish lexicologists.

Doesn’t this contradict with the often-offered notion that these “neofascists” are major beneficiaries of the social system?

Why would I care if it did? In any case it is part of the psychology of prejudice to dismiss counterexamples as “exceptions”, and to sustain spurious justifications for doing so.

A welfare system is essentially a fund owned and managed exclusively by its members/investors…

You are describing a mutual insurance scheme. In the Nordic countries we understand the welfare system as an instrument of social policy that cannot be divorced from its social objectives, which include optimising human potential as we find it. As I noted above, your views enable a fascist to reconcile the notion of universal social welfare with the logic of Action T4. All that is required is for the “members” to decide that certain untermensch are not worthy of inclusion. This is the Allah-oholaiset position, which you evidently share.

What he actually wrote was that the only clearly quantifiable and thus observed component (as opposed to an abstract convention) of the value of an individual is the instrumental (-> potential labor market) value.

Hmmm… either you did not understand the source or your translation skills are very poor indeed. The offensive text from Scripta (13 April 2005) reads as follows:

The entire text is intended to be a critique of the concept of dignity, and could plausibly be submitted as something written by Adolf Eichmann.

The question is relevant to only those on-board the ship; If you couldn’t afford a ticket and were left outside, you are in a different equation.

Indeed a much more fortunate equation, but you clearly did not understand the obvious point that the Birkenhead Drill is a very specific denial of the fascist Allah-oholaiset view. We could expand on this point by examining why it was necessary to establish the Waffen SS and not delegate implementation of the “final solution” to the Wehrmacht.

As usual, we find that these Allah-oholaiset rationalisations are based on multiplying undefined and vaguely defined ideas, responding to requests for clarification with more of the same tosh, and all ultimately antithetical to any notion of fairness. Sociopathic is the term that comes to mind.

Do you think kukkahattutäti will ever get into the dictionary as a non-pejorative expression?

On the contrary, the definition is spot-on. It is of course a pejorative expression. The purpose of the word is to laugh at people like you.

You are describing a mutual insurance scheme.

What was being described was the general setup of any social insurance system. Whether the ownership and payments are direct or state-mediated are just features of the system.

You can save political platitudes like

In the Nordic countries we understand the welfare system as an instrument of social policy that cannot be divorced from its social objectives, which include optimising human potential as we find it.

to May Day speeches. They have little bearing on actual reality.

The only relevant variables are 1) how is the system financed (who pays for the system and how are the payments collected), 2) which sector(s) organize(s) the services etc. and 3) what is the extent of the system (who can be a beneficiary and in what way).

Item 1) has precedence over all the other features.

As I noted above, your views enable a fascist to reconcile the notion of universal social welfare with the logic of Action T4.

You seem to be obsessed with the Third Reich. I wonder if that is harmful to a person.

All that is required is for the “members” to decide that certain untermensch are not worthy of inclusion. This is the Allah-oholaiset position, which you evidently share.

The social systems in question are nation state schemes financed and supported by different nation states. Anyone not associated with the particular state is by default excluded. Indeed the potential of wanna-be members should be carefully evaluated.

What he actually wrote was that the only clearly quantifiable and thus observed component (as opposed to an abstract convention) of the value of an individual is the instrumental (-> potential labor market) value.

Hmmm… either you did not understand the source or your translation skills are very poor indeed. The offensive text from Scripta (13 April 2005) reads as follows:

The entire text is intended to be a critique of the concept of dignity, and could plausibly be submitted as something written by Adolf Eichmann.

I used the phrase “the value of an individual” on purpose as it better reflects the original text and the Finnish word ‘ihmis(en)arvo‘. The word ‘dignity’ does not invoke the concept of quantification whereas the word ‘arvo’ does.

I would say my description of the content of the blog text is quite accurate, which can be seen for example from the passage you quoted.

Oh, there is that Nazi obsession again.

Indeed a much more fortunate equation

Why is there a mass of people gathering at the gangway, then?

but you clearly did not understand the obvious point that the Birkenhead Drill is a very specific denial of the fascist Allah-oholaiset view.

I would imagine the people on-board have no trouble in placing their women and children first into the lifeboats. Actually I am pretty certain of this.

As usual, we find that these Allah-oholaiset rationalisations are based on multiplying undefined and vaguely defined ideas, responding to requests for clarification with more of the same tosh, and all ultimately antithetical to any notion of fairness. Sociopathic is the term that comes to mind.

There is a direct relation between what you get and how much you contribute. Whether this relation should be 1:1 or something else, can be discussed.

So, do you consider the concept of being rewarded in proportion to how much you contribute unfair and sociopathic?

In your opinion, should the means of production be owned by the state?